Friday, November 09, 2012

Left turn -- Dems, GOP battle to a draw, but liberals romp

Democrats held on to the White House and their majority in the U.S. Senate in Tuesday’s voting. Republicans preserved their majority in the House and increased by one their hold on the majority of state governorships. Steady as she goes.

Philosophically, however, it was a change election. From coast to coast, on issue after issue, in race after race, liberals beat conservatives and signaled that, contrary to conventional wisdom, we’re no longer a “center-right” nation. Leftward ho!

Consider:

Voters in four states considered ballot initiatives on gay marriage, an idea with a 0-32 record at the polls dating to the 1990s.

In Minnesota, they rejected a proposal to amend the state’s constitution to define marriage as the union of a man and woman. In Maine, Maryland and Washington state, they OK’d proposals to legalize same-sex marriage.

Wisconsin elected the first openly gay U.S. senator in history, Tammy Baldwin.

Iowa voters rejected an effort to oust Iowa State Supreme Court Justice David Wiggins, targeted by social conservatives for his vote in 2007 to legalize gay marriage.

“Calls for a constitutional amendment against (gay marriage) are now quixotic,” conceded the right-wing National Review in an editorial Wednesday. That essay began, “Conservatives suffered a terrible defeat last night, and there is no point pretending otherwise.”

Voters in the states of Washington and Colorado OK’d recreational use of marijuana, a libertarian initiative fueled by support from liberals fed up with malignantly punitive drug laws. Massachusetts voted to become the 18th state to legalize medical marijuana.

Two red-state Republican U.S. Senate candidates whose blunt rhetoric on abortion as it relates to rape identified them as extremists on the issue — Todd Akin of Missouri and Richard Mourdock of Indiana — lost what were once considered easy races for them.

Elsewhere, voters gave the heave-ho to two high-profile tea party Republican congressmen — Allen West of Florida and Illinois’ own Joe Walsh (left) — and thwarted the congressional bid of rising tea party star Mia Love, the small-town African-American mayor from Utah who spoke in prime time at the Republican National Convention.

A “DREAM Act” proposal passed in Maryland, so now the state’s undocumented high school students will be eligible for in-state tuition discounts at its public colleges and universities.

Florida voters rejected proposed amendments to their state constitution that would have banned the use of public funds for abortions and tried to hinder the implementation of Obamacare by prohibiting compulsory participation in health plans.

In California, voters approved a referendum measure to soften the state’s harsh “three-strikes-you’re-out” law that has seen repeat offenders given life sentences for such non-violent crimes as burglary and possession of illegal drugs.

Tuesday wasn’t a clean sweep for progressive causes, to be sure.

Californians rejected a proposal to abolish the death penalty, Oregonians said no to recreational marijuana, Arkansas residents voted down medical marijuana and Montana voters added new restrictions to the medical use of marijuana. Anti-Obamacare measures were approved in Alabama, Montana, Wyoming.

Too late for that, though.

President Barack Obama’s re-election means Obamacare is here to stay. All its provisions and protections will be in place by the halfway mark of his second term, after which the program will be too entrenched and too popular to repeal.

No doubt conservatives will revise it when the pendulum swings back their way, as it inevitably will, but they’re just going to have to get used to the bitter idea of near universal health care coverage.

The fight over abortion rights will continue without resolution, and it remains to be seen whether even liberals will abandon the experiment in legalizing pot. Conservative firebrands will rise again.

But marriage equality is here to stay. A few more ballot measures, a few more court rulings and a few more bills passed through Democratic legislatures — ahem! Illinois? — and we won’t even be debating it seriously anymore.

A Republican will be elected president again sooner or later, to be sure. But he or she will take charge of a changed nation that isn’t ever going all the way back.

1. There are many conservatives who want gay marriage (the Log Cabin Republicans, for instance) While it would be nice if more Republicans came around, I think the party will embrace it eventually. Give us a chance. After all, Obama didn't come around untill last year. Also, these elections were all in blue states.

2. Most of us did not know or care about Baldwin's sexual orientaion.

3. Voting to keep a judge is not the same thing as voting for gay marriage.

4. The defeats of Akin and Murdock were results of gaffes and not properly vetting of candidates. no one was rooting for them. Also, no one is going to pass a law requiring rape victims to have their babies. It it was ever passed it would be struck down by the Supreme Court.

5. Conservatives are not necessarily against pot, and not all liberals are for it.

6. Parts of Obamacare will be stopped when it runs out of money.

I realize you are feeling high right now, Eric (metaphorically, anyway) and you want to gloat. That's fine. Take your victory lap. Bottom line is that most things stayed the same.

CT: Murphy more liberal than Lieberman
HI: Hirono more liberal than Akaka
IN: Donnelly more liberal than Lugar
ME: King more liberal than Snowe
MA: Warren more liberal than Brown
NM: Heinrich slightly more liberal than Bingaman
VA: Kaine more liberal than Webb
WI: Baldwin more liberal than Kohl

"There are many conservatives who want gay marriage (the Log Cabin Republicans, for instance)"

Ummmm, no.

The Log Cabin Republicans are the political version of the classic abused wife, who returns over and over again despite being bloodied and bruised by someone she thinks loves her. Nobody in the Republican Party gives a crap about them.

The nature of my job allows me to meet many new people (coworkers) every day. Frequently in the double digits. By virtue of the company and industry I work for, they tend to skew conservative, sometimes rabidly.

I can count on one hand the number of conservatives I have met over the past 7 years who have positive feelings relative to gay rights. And, yes, believe it or not, many people I work with volunteer this information, unsolicited, in the course of normal conversation.

The big problem for liberalism is that the Republicans are entrenched in the House, when the 2010 elections handed a host of state houses over to the Republicans just in time for redistricting after the 2010 census. So the big victory for conservatism was basically keeping control of the House.

JakeH, I'm going to be the big man here and admit...I messed up. Badly. It was winning quite well throughout the night, over 50%, and somehow I COMPLETELY forgot that you need 60% to pass an amendment.

You got the right letter, but the wrong word, the correct word is Libertarian, the country is moving in that direction and it's neither right of left, but over from both sides. Americans are getting sick and tired of being pushed around by the government from either side. If the country was really moving to the left the Tea Party would have lost the House and they didn't. The legalization of pot is about freedom. and so is Gay marriage. If Ron Paul or Gary Johnson would have been running on the republican side I think the out come would have been different. Just wait until 2014 to see if this trend continues, Ron Paul supporters control the party in some states so we're going to see more freedom movement candidates running. I'm glad Obama won, because he will definitely runs us into the ground, Romney might have held it together for another 4 years.

"A Republican will be elected president again sooner or later, to be sure."

Not likely. A Republican hasn't won the presidency soundly since 1988. That's a quarter century ago. Since 1988, there have been two VERY squeaky victories from George W Bush. That's it.

The country is becoming more diverse, less affluent (poor getting poorer), less independent (marriage rates falling, out of wedlock births rising), and dependent on more regulation. All of these run counter to Republican extremisms.

My guess is the House will be controlled by the Republicans (due to population shifts out of 'blue' states to 'red' states), the Senate by the Democrats, and the White House by Democrats for a very long time.

I'm amused to find this prediction in my files from Garry in August, 2011:

Obama is toast in November 2012. He will even lose to the looniest possible Republican ticket: Palin, Bachmann, Paul or even the the worst of the worst, Santorum. To call Obama a wimp is an insult to wimps. To call him an empty suit is an insult to empty suits! He's easily made himself into the worst president in history & that's saying something considering he followed the worst president in history!

This might be off-topic. If so, I apologize. I have shared 3 van rides with at least 12 different people over the past 30 hours. The anti-Obama rhetoric flowed.

"Who are these people who voted for him? How could they be so stupid?"

"I woke up this morning in a nightmare. A four year nightmare."

"How could this have happened? He was doing so well at the start of the night." (I guess if Dick Morris is your polllng analyst, you are in for a rude awakening.)

"Maybe they'll find something about this Benghazi thing and get him impeached."

"You know, now they're coming for our 401(k)s. It's in Obamacare."

"Yeah, and we'll have to start paying 4% tax for Obamacare, too."

Along with multiple cell phones being passed around with anti-Obama memes, the content of which I don't remember but you can imagine.

That's just a small sample. Every one spoke freely, because the thought that someone who supports the President riding in the van was incomprehensible. I just sat quietly, my foot tapping out the rhythm of Springsteen's "We Take Care of Our Own," which played as the confetti dropped on the re-elected President after his acceptance speech.

I agree with this, except I resist the repeated characterization of the outcome of the election as otherwise ho-hum, status quo. Yes, Republicans retained control of the House, as everyone knew they would, but Democrats picked up more seats than expected -- about 7. Yes, the Senate stayed in Democratic hands, but Democrats did better than expected (even according to otherwise dead-on data-god Nate Silver), increasing their majority to 55 (assuming Angus King caucuses with the Democrats). And Obama did better than expected, picking up all the swing states (including Florida!) except for North Carolina, and netting a solid 2-3 point popular victory, as opposed to the razor-thin 0-2 point win, or even popular loss, that many foretold.

I think reelection means a little more than election. Last time, Obama had a much more favorable opponent than Romney -- George Bush -- and an October (late September) surprise that dwarfed Sandy, bad is it was, in political and actual significance -- that is, the peak of the financial crisis. This time, Republicans sought to make the election a referendum on Obama, and they got their wish. This time, Obama wasn't just the fresh and vaguely inspiring alternative for a scared, annoyed, and/or fed-up electorate. We've lived with him now for four messy and less inspiring (though, to my way of thinking, still impressive) years, the economy, though slowly recovering, remains uncertain and far from out of the woods, and we still like him and trust him enough to rehire him for another four. He wasn't a fluke, a lucky son-of-a-gun, a naive empty suit long on the hopey-changey talk but short on governing ability, a gifted politician with a short resume who had benefited from a run of luck in previous winning races, destined to fizzle before the onslaught of real events, complex challenges, unforgiving opposition, and unremitting scrutiny, the likes of which he had never faced before. He won a vote of confidence when he could have easily lost, when the electorate is still irritable, and that endorsement, even if it's not as full-throated or joyful or unambiguous as the last one -- along with the fact that everything else in serious contention went the Democrats' and liberals' way -- means something more than just Whatever.

A more savvy GOP politician than Romney, who didn't simultaneously insult Hispanics and marginalize women, who didn't threaten to end funding for Big Bird, state (wrongly) that Syria was Iran's "gateway to the sea" and clammed up during Hurricane Sandy when he was asked about earlier comments that he would privatize FEMA, might have beaten Obama.

But Romney's tall and handsome, so they put him out front. Well, Obama's tall and handsome, too. And brilliant, or he wouldn't have been President in the first place.

Yawn, ... three blue states approve gay "marriage," another one (MN) doesn't pass a constitutional amendment that reinforces its statute (which is anti-gay "marriage"), Missouri and Indiana didn't want idiots for senators, three states vote to allow marijuana which many conservatives ranging from William F. Buckley to me enthusiastically support, and the most divisive president in history narrowly wins a divisive election over a flip-flopping dud whom his own base rejected (even more emphatically than it rejected McCain). Today looks about the same as yesterday and the chances for more polarization and gridlock are looking better than ever. Not much to see here, folks.

Greg, I think that you are seeing libertarianism on social issues, but that doesn't translate into increasing acceptance of *economic* libertarianism, which remains a different animal. Indeed, libertarianism on the social issues plus skepticism of economic libertarianism equals plain old liberalism. So, I think you can take back your extra letters until there's evidence to the contrary.

Obama does NOT have a mandate to "rule" in this country!
With about half of the voters having given their vote (where do we see the actual voter participation figures??) and a "thin majority", one should not be allowed to be president of such a big country!
It is high time to change our Constitution to the effect that the President must have a clear mandate of the people!

It will be interesting to see how this left turn holds up when this country runs out of money and China, weary of us, calls the debt which at the end of the next 4 years should be well over 20 trillion. What will happen when the money runs out for the massive entitlements? What will happen as class warfare escalates and the so called downtrodden, tired of no jobs, no money, no future, decide to take care of their situation? The emphasis on social issues-- gay marriage, abortion, legalizing pot -- was a cruel joke on the electorate.

@Kaiborder - Please define "running out of money". Please do tell how much of the total debt China owns? Please do tell how much China earns from their USA investments (hint - they pay us to take their money as real interest rates are negative).

And now back to the premise of the article. Obviously the country went back to the left in this election. Also, when states start redrawing the congressional districts to favor Democrats, the house will return to a more left tilt. The "cruel joke" is the phony class warfare mantra from the conservatives attempting to distract from addressing the real issues in the country.

Yay! More leftist ideology to bring about more poverty, more bad schools, more public debt, more unemployment, more empty store fronts, more taxes, more government intervention into the lives of productive, law-abiding citizens! This sounds great! Lets turn the whole country into Detroit! Great job, America!

"Indeed, libertarianism on the social issues plus skepticism of economic libertarianism equals plain old liberalism."

Indeed, the first part of your sentence is not true. Social liberarianism is not the same as social liberalism according to our modern definition of liberalism (as opposed to classical liberalism). Drug legalization is a libertarian goal; that some liberals support it (as well as some conservatives) does not change that. Regulating soft drink sizes, gun ownership, public smoking, personal safety (e.g., seat belt laws) is socially liberal but emphatically not socially libertarian. Anytime the left wants to abandon the types of regulations I cited and embrace libertarianism on social issues, I welcome the company.

"Wow, Greg J admits gay marriage is about freedom!! Will wonders never cease?"

Now let's get one thing straight - I have never said that gay "marriage" is about freedom but I have always said that allowing states to define marriage is consistent with freedom and the proper administration of separation of powers. In my reading of the law, how another state defines marriage is not any of my business nor any of the federal government's. In my reading of the law, how another state regulates abortion is not any of my business nor any of the federal government's. I would have a strong objection to any court case, Supreme Court or otherwise, that overturns a state decision to, for example, allow gay "marriage," legalize drugs, or legalize abortion.

I have consistently rejected using the federal government or the courts to override the 10th Amendment even when such override would produce conservative or libertarian results. You may disagree with my interpretation of the 10th Amendment but I doubt you can find instances where I've deviated from it.

ZORN REPLY -- I'm curious about the limits of your position here. Among these hypothetical prohibitions of marriage on a state level, which if any would you object to as a federal matter, and on what grounds?
1. interracial marriage
2. marriage of disabled people
3. intergenerational marriage (a ban on age gaps larger than 20 years)
4. interfaith marriage
5. mixed-height marriage (a ban on height gaps of more than eight inches)
6. mixed-weight marriages (maximum 200 pound gap)
7. mixed-citizenship marriages (a ban on American citizens marrying foreign nationals).

ZORN REPLY -- I'm curious about the limits of your position here. Among these hypothetical prohibitions of marriage on a state level, which if any would you object to as a federal matter, and on what grounds?

GREG J REPLY -- None. I would vote against all such prohibitions if my state attempted to enact them. Of course there are federal laws that would come into play on some of these and I would enforce the current federal law as a judge or executive but I presume you're asking where I think we should be in terms of policy.

ZORN REPLY -- You seem to want to have it both ways on this issue... deferring to the states to enact whatever nutty prohibitions their voters want to enact while voting against any theoretical proposals to enact such prohibitions. If such prohibitions existed, however, you would not vote to lift them, I presume, on the grounds that the state should not expand the franchise of legal marriage in any way since it really ought to be involved in that in the first place.
This allows you to adopt a pose of purity of principle while avoiding altogether the ethical/moral question
My view, of course, is that on certain matters, people should not be subject to the whims, prejudices, hatreds, inclinations or whatever of the majority. The no state government or 50.1% of the electorate should be able to act to withhold certain rights and privileges from people based on their characteristics or beliefs. This faith you have in states and the belief you have in states rights is not vindicated by history. It's my strong belief that the federal government can, should and must step in, as it did in Loving. Do you disagree with the Loving decision that compelled states to allow racial intermarriage? What about Griswold? Do you disagree with the Griswold decision that forbade states from banning contraception?
This logical extension of libertarianism is what dooms the party and the likes of Ron Paul, who seemed to think the public would buy his opposition to civil rights laws AND his opposition to racism. Nope. Civil rights laws disable racism. Racism flourishes in the fetid soil of opposition to civil rights laws.
Change a few words and you've got my (winning) argument on gay marriage.

lexi, if you're talking about access to a good, free public education, enough food to eat, a safe place to live, and the possibility of getting a good job so you can support yourself & have health coverage, plus the freedom to marry the person you love & to worship in the church or temple or mosque or whereever you want, then, you're right, we "liberals" do want people to be "takers".

Martin, you say " Also, when states start redrawing the congressional districts to favor Democrats, the house will return to a more left tilt." So basically, once states start gerrymandering the vote, in favor of the Democrats (see the Illinois Map) so the Democrats can win with 52-53% of the vote then the Democrats can retake the house?

@Taxpayer: I believe the dichotomy refers to the idea that some people "take" more from government than they "make" for society and under liberal/socialist societies the number of "takers" eventually exceeds the number of "makers".

But not necessarily in Canada, Germany, and all the Scandinavian countries, where some form of "socialism" - not the kind practiced in, say, Venezuela, which is a very different type - is in existence & seems to work very well. And wouldn't you call getting giant tax breaks "taking" from society, when most people don't have access to them (like taxing the fees that hedge fund managers get for managing the funds as capital gains instead of income when everyone else has to declare their earnings as income)? Especially if the needs of a society - infrastructure, for example - go wanting?

We have always had a lot of people doing more taking than making. We call them children and the elderly. Society has always gotten along just fine despite this.

In fact, we've gotten along a lot better since the government has taken responsibility for caring for the elderly. Before Social Security and Medicare, when people grew too old for work, they had to rely on their families for support. If their families hated them, or their children died before they did, or they never had children, then they were SOL. Maybe they could do some kind of menial labor until they died, or enter a hellish charity dormitory, or they could die in the street.

Now, elderly people, by and large, have a pretty good quality of life regardless of their family circumstances. And those of us who are not yet elderly haven't been pushed into penury paying for this. Maybe the elderly are "takers" according to the silly dichotomy, but so what? YOLO, as the kids say, and it's an unmitigated good thing that elderly people can live out their years in relative peace and comfort.

I'm not willing to sacrifice their quality of life on the altar of Ayn Rand's silly dichotomy. Republicans are.

@Wayne "So basically, once states start gerrymandering the vote, in favor of the Democrats (see the Illinois Map) so the Democrats can win with 52-53% of the vote then the Democrats can retake the house? "

Yes - that's what I say. Except it's not a question of to "start gerrymandering". It happens all the time and it's exactly what the Republicans did in many states giving them the vote to retake the house. Both parties do it and it's perfectly legal.

The "takers" are the rich folks that run companies and governments into the ground and walk off with hefty profits leaving everyone else unemployed and in debt. This tends to get the "makers" - the ones who actually contribute to a decent society - a little mad. That's what we're seeing in Greece, lexi.

Greg J., as an attorney and tax accountant, you should be well aware that how another state defines marriage is of considerable interest to the federal government. Your comment makes me wonder about your credentials when you make such an obvious mistake.

(As an example, under Internal Revenue Code §121, a single taxpayer may exclude up to $250,000 of profit due to the sale of his or her personal principal residence from taxable income. Married couples filing jointly may exclude up to $500,000 on the sale of their home. Lesbian and gay couples, who are not permitted to marry or to file jointly, are therefore taxed on all gain above $250,000, creating a large tax penalty compared to similarly situated married couples.)

"I think the country is right where I am: Center - Center. Socially liberal, fiscally conservative. "

What is the center? You believe that because one subset of your views is conservative and one subset is liberal that makes you center? Then someone who is socially conservative and fiscally liberal is also center. Except that their views are diametrically opposed to your views. But you're both in the center, even though you would disagree on everything. And then there are people who are are both socially and economically liberal and people who are both socially and economically conservative. But they're not "the country."

ZORN REPLY (first excerpt) -- You seem to want to have it both ways on this issue... deferring to the states to enact whatever nutty prohibitions their voters want to enact while voting against any theoretical proposals to enact such prohibitions. If such prohibitions existed, however, you would not vote to lift them, I presume, on the grounds that the state should not expand the franchise of legal marriage in any way since it really ought to be involved in that in the first place. This allows you to adopt a pose of purity of principle while avoiding altogether the ethical/moral question

GREG J REPLY -- I see why you would think that but, again, how the law is administered is important to me too. If my fellow citizens voted for state recognition of marriage then I'm not going out of my way to support silly restrictions. Take your mixed-height marriage prohibition, for instance. Sure, it could theoretically reduce state involvement in marriage but the effort and cost to enforce that isn't nearly worth it, and besides it's a crackpot idea. By the way, the same goes for abortion. I do not support those crazy, intrusive ultrasound provisions or any other end run around Roe. We have to have sound, enforceable, clear laws, which is also why I want to clean up the tax code even if it means an increase by way of shutting down loopholes.

To anticipate your next point, in my opinion, gay "marriage" doesn't fit into the crackpot unadministerable realm because it requires a significant change to the definition of marriage and an expansion of the institution to relationships that I think the government has no interest in regulating. I accept that there is some validity to the argument that the state should be involved in marriage - although I disagree with it - but I don't see why marriage needs to be expanded to include other relationships. In other words, I reject the analogy that some people make between biracial marriage and gay "marriage." Think what you will about that, and we've been through it so many times I don't think it's worth it to revisit, but it's a sincerely held view of mine.

ZORN REPLY (second excerpt) -- My view, of course, is that on certain matters, people should not be subject to the whims, prejudices, hatreds, inclinations or whatever of the majority. The no state government or 50.1% of the electorate should be able to act to withhold certain rights and privileges from people based on their characteristics or beliefs. This faith you have in states and the belief you have in states rights is not vindicated by history. It's my strong belief that the federal government can, should and must step in, as it did in Loving. Do you disagree with the Loving decision that compelled states to allow racial intermarriage? What about Griswold? Do you disagree with the Griswold decision that forbade states from banning contraception?

GREG J REPLY -- Yes, I disagree with Loving and I disagree with Griswold. I like the result of Loving but I do not like some of the result of Griswold. I also disagree with Lawrence although I do like the effect (which was a point made by Justice Thomas in his dissent).

ZORN REPLY (third excerpt) -- This logical extension of libertarianism is what dooms the party and the likes of Ron Paul, who seemed to think the public would buy his opposition to civil rights laws AND his opposition to racism. Nope. Civil rights laws disable racism. Racism flourishes in the fetid soil of opposition to civil rights laws. Change a few words and you've got my (winning) argument on gay marriage.

GREG J REPLY -- You'll get no argument from me that libertarianism in its pure form is a losing philosophy and that Ron Paul and candidates like him can not prevail as he campaigned. That is why I abandoned him in 2012 to support Santorum. I am a proponent of civil rights laws, including the right to be born. I am not a proponent of trampling the Constitution to get there, however. There are ways to get to the right result and protect the integrity of our system.

@Dr. X,
--
Magnificent point, my friend (and why not end the week on a note of agreement, right?)!

Everyone should read Dr. X's comment over and over again. This is especially true for those of you who think that there can be a "moderate party" or "centrist party" that will steal the show from the Republicans and the Democrats. As Dr. X points out, there are many kinds of moderates and I'll add that they would disagree as much with each other, if not more, than Republicans and Democrats disagree today.

lexi, why don't we stop all the tax breaks to oil companies first? As for tax breaks for Hollywood, I'm not sure what you mean. If you mean the breaks that states give to have them make movies there, maybe, except that having a movie made in your town means big bucks to the economy. I'm not sure what the $4 billion in tax breaks means to the oil companies; they haven't drilled on all the land they've leased yet, and gas prices are still driven by world prices, so it hasn't helped there.

@Liz: I'm in favor of stopping tax breaks to all big business. Including oil, PBS and solar. How about you?

PS: Having a plant built in your town produces local revenue too. So what? That revenue will otherwise go somewhere. Everyone who gives and gets tax breaks has a reasonable excuse why they should. More on Hollywood tax breaks here:

If anyone cares to know where people get the makers/takers mantra to mindlessly repeat (and delude themselves into thinking they've made some sort of point), here you go. It's Ann Coulter regurgitating Ayn Rand:

About "Change of Subject."

"Change of Subject" by Chicago Tribune op-ed columnist Eric Zorn contains observations, reports, tips, referrals and tirades, though not necessarily in that order. Links will tend to expire, so seize the day. For an archive of Zorn's latest Tribune columns click here. An explanation of the title of this blog is here. If you have other questions, suggestions or comments, send e-mail to ericzorn at gmail.com.
More about Eric Zorn

Contributing editor Jessica Reynolds is a 2012 graduate of Loyola University Chicago and is the coordinator of the Tribune's editorial board. She can be reached at jreynolds at tribune.com.